Confidence Intervals of the Simple Difference between the Proportions of a Primary Infection and a Secondary Infection,Given the Primary Infection

This paper discusses interval estimation of the simple difference (SD) between the proportions of the primary infection and the secondary infection, given the primary infection, by developing three asymptotic interval estimators using Wald's test statistic, the likelihood‐ratio test, and the basic principle of Fieller's theorem. This paper further evaluates and compares the performance of these interval estimators with respect to the coverage probability and the expected length of the resulting confidence intervals. This paper finds that the asymptotic confidence interval using the likelihood ratio test consistently performs well in all situations considered here. When the underlying SD is within 0.10 and the total number of subjects is not large (say, 50), this paper further finds that the interval estimators using Fieller's theorem would be preferable to the estimator using the Wald's test statistic if the primary infection probability were moderate (say, 0.30), but the latter is preferable to the former if this probability were large (say, 0.80). When the total number of subjects is large (say, ≥200), all the three interval estimators perform well in almost all situations considered in this paper. In these cases, for simplicity, we may apply either of the two interval estimators using Wald's test statistic or Fieller's theorem without losing much accuracy and efficiency as compared with the interval estimator using the asymptotic likelihood ratio test.     

Point Estimation on Relative Risk under Inverse Sampling

When the underlying disease is rare, to control the coefficient of variation for the sample proportion of cases, we may wish to apply inverse sampling. In this paper, we derive the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimator (UMVUE) of relative risk and its variance in closed form under inverse sampling. On the basis of a Monte Carlo simulation, we demonstrate that using the UMVUE of relative risk can substantially reduce the mean-squared-error of using the maximum likelihood estimator, especially when the number of index cases in both comparison samples is small. For a given fixed total cost, we include a program that can be used to find the optimal allocation for the number of index cases to minimize the variance of the UMVUE as well.     

Notes in Case-Control Studies with Matched Pairs under Inverse Sampling

In case-control studies with matched pairs, the traditional point estimator of odds ratio (OR) is well-known to be biased with no exact finite variance under binomial sampling. In this paper, we consider use of inverse sampling in which we continue to sample subjects to form matched pairs until we obtain a pre-determined number (>0) of index pairs with the case unexposed but the control exposed. In contrast to use of binomial sampling, we show that the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimator (UMVUE) of OR does exist under inverse sampling. We further derive an exact confidence interval of OR in closed form. Finally, we develop an exact test and an asymptotic test for testing the null hypothesis H₀: OR = 1, as well as discuss sample size determination on the minimum required number of index pairs for a desired power at α-level.     

A Monte Carlo evaluation of five interval estimators for the relative risk in sparse data

The relative risk (RR) is one of the most frequently used indices to measure the strength of association between a disease and a risk factor in etiological studies or the efficacy of an experimental treatment in clinical trials. In this paper, we concentrate attention on interval estimation of RR for sparse data, in which we have only a few patients per stratum, but a moderate or large number of strata. We consider five asymptotic interval estimators for RR, including a weighted least-squares (WLS) interval estimator with an ad hoc adjustment procedure for sparse data, an interval estimator proposed elsewhere for rare events, an interval estimator based on the Mantel-Haenszel (MH) estimator with a logarithmic transformation, an interval estimator calculated from a quadratic equation, and an interval estimator derived from the ratio estimator with a logarithmic transformation. On the basis of Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluate and compare the performance of these five interval estimators in a variety of situations. We note that, except for the cases in which the underlying common RR across strata is around 1, using the WLS interval estimator with the adjustment procedure for sparse data can be misleading. We note further that using the interval estimator suggested elsewhere for rare events tends to be conservative and hence leads to loss of efficiency. We find that the other three interval estimators can consistently perform well even when the mean number of patients for a given treatment is approximately 3 patients per stratum and the number of strata is as small as 20. Finally, we use a mortality data set comparing two chemotherapy treatments in patients with multiple myeloma to illustrate the use of the estimators discussed in this paper.     

Asymptotic behavior of the scaled mutation rate estimators

Important aspects of population evolution have been investigated using nucleotide sequences. Under the neutral Wright–Fisher model, the scaled mutation rate represents twice the average number of new mutations per generations and it is one of the key parameters in population genetics. In this study, we present various methods of estimation of this parameter, analytical studies of their asymptotic behavior as well as comparisons of the distribution's behavior of these estimators through simulations. As knowledge of the genealogy is needed to estimate the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), an application with real data is also presented, using jackknife to correct the bias of the MLE, which can be generated by the estimation of the tree. We proved analytically that the Waterson's estimator and the MLE are asymptotically equivalent with the same rate of convergence to normality. Furthermore, we showed that the MLE has a better rate of convergence than Waterson's estimator for values of the parameter greater than one and this relationship is reversed when the parameter is less than one.     

A Note on Interval Estimation of the Simple Difference in Data with Correlated Matched Pairs

When we employ cluster sampling to collect data with matched pairs, the assumption of independence between all matched pairs is not likely true. This paper notes that applying interval estimators, that do not account for the intraclass correlation between matched pairs, to estimate the simple difference between two proportions of response can be quite misleading, especially when both the number of matched pairs per cluster and the intraclass correlation between matched pairs within clusters are large. This paper develops two asymptotic interval estimators of the simple difference, that accommodate the data of cluster sampling with correlated matched pairs. This paper further applies Monte Carlo simulation to compare the finite sample performance of these estimators and demonstrates that the interval estimator, derived from a quadratic equation proposed here, can actually perform quite well in a variety of situations.     

Confidence Intervals of the Attributable Risk under Cross‐Sectional Sampling with Confounders

Since it can account for both the strength of the association between exposure to a risk factor and the underlying disease of interest and the prevalence of the risk factor, the attributable risk (AR) is probably the most commonly used epidemiologic measure for public health administrators to locate important risk factors. This paper discusses interval estimation of the AR in the presence of confounders under cross‐sectional sampling. This paper considers four asymptotic interval estimators which are direct generalizations of those originally proposed for the case of no confounders, and employs Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the finite‐sample performance of these estimators in a variety of situations. This paper finds that interval estimators using Wald's test statistic and a quadratic equation suggested here can consistently perform reasonably well with respect to the coverage probability in all the situations considered here. This paper notes that the interval estimator using the logarithmic transformation, that is previously found to consistently perform well for the case of no confounders, may have the coverage probability less than the desired confidence level when the underlying common prevalence rate ratio (RR) across strata between the exposure and the non‐exposure is large (≥4). This paper further notes that the interval estimator using the logit transformation is inappropriate for use when the underlying common RR ≐ 1. On the other hand, when the underlying common RR is large (≥4), this interval estimator is probably preferable to all the other three estimators. When the sample size is large (≥400) and the RR ≥ 2 in the situations considered here, this paper finds that all the four interval estimators developed here are essentially equivalent with respect to both the coverage probability and the average length.     

On Estimating a Population Proportion via Ranked Set Sampling

This paper explores the use of the rank set sampling (RSS) protocol as it pertains to the estimation of a population proportion. The maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) and the sample proportion, both based on the RSS data, are discussed and their corresponding asymptotic distributions are derived. Based on these results the MLE is found to be uniformly more efficient than the sample proportion. Nevertheless, both estimators are more efficient than the simple random sample proportion. The greatest gains in efficiency are obtained at the center of the parameter space. Finally, these results remain valid in the presence of judgment error. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

Conditional Maximum Likelihood Estimate and Exact Test of the Common Relative Difference in Combination of 2 × 2 Tables under Inverse Sampling

On the basis of the conditional distribution, given the marginal totals of non-cases fixed for each of independent 2 × 2 tables under inverse sampling, this paper develops the conditional maximum likelihood (CMLE) estimator of the underlying common relative difference (RD) and its asymptotic conditional variance. This paper further provides for the RD an exact interval calculation procedure, of which the coverage probability is always larger than or equal to the desired confidence level and for investigating whether the underlying common RD equals any specified value an exact test procedure, of which Type I error is always less than or equal to the nominal α-level. These exact interval estimation and exact hypothesis testing procedures are especially useful for the situation in which the number of index subjects in a study is small and the asymptotically approximate methods may not be appropriate for use. This paper also notes the condition under which the CMLE of RD uniquely exists and includes a simple example to illustrate use of these techniques.     

Matrix methods for estimating odds ratios with misclassified exposure data: extensions and comparisons

Misclassification of exposure variables is a common problem in epidemiologic studies. This paper compares the matrix method (Barron, 1977, Biometrics 33, 414-418; Greenland, 1988a, Statistics in Medicine 7, 745-757) and the inverse matrix method (Marshall, 1990, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 43, 941-947) to the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) that corrects the odds ratio for bias due to a misclassified binary covariate. Under the assumption of differential misclassification, the inverse matrix method is always more efficient than the matrix method; however, the efficiency depends strongly on the values of the sensitivity, specificity, baseline probability of exposure, the odds ratio, case-control ratio, and validation sampling fraction. In a study on sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), an estimate of the asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) of the inverse matrix estimate was 0.99, while the matrix method's ARE was 0.19. Under nondifferential misclassification, neither the matrix nor the inverse matrix estimator is uniformly more efficient than the other; the efficiencies again depend on the underlying parameters. In the SIDS data, the MLE was more efficient than the matrix method (ARE = 0.39). In a study investigating the effect of vitamin A intake on the incidence of breast cancer, the MLE was more efficient than the matrix method (ARE = 0.75).     

Five Confidence Intervals of the Closed Population Size in the Capture‐recapture Problem under Inverse Sampling with Replacement

In the capture‐recapture problem for two independent samples, the traditional estimator, calculated as the product of the two sample sizes divided by the number of sampled subjects appearing commonly in both samples, is well known to be a biased estimator of the population size and have no finite variance under direct or binomial sampling. To alleviate these theoretical limitations, the inverse sampling, in which we continue sampling subjects in the second sample until we obtain a desired number of marked subjects who appeared in the first sample, has been proposed elsewhere. In this paper, we consider five interval estimators of the population size, including the most commonly‐used interval estimator using Wald's statistic, the interval estimator using the logarithmic transformation, the interval estimator derived from a quadratic equation developed here, the interval estimator using the χ²‐approximation, and the interval estimator based on the exact negative binomial distribution. To evaluate and compare the finite sample performance of these estimators, we employ Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the coverage probability and the standardized average length of the resulting confidence intervals in a variety of situations. To study the location of these interval estimators, we calculate the non‐coverage probability in the two tails of the confidence intervals. Finally, we briefly discuss the optimal sample size determination for a given precision to minimize the expected total cost. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

A comparative study of conditional maximum likelihood estimation of a common odds ratio

The finite-sample properties of various point estimators of a common odds ratio from multiple 2 X 2 tables have been considered in a number of simulation studies. However, the conditional maximum likelihood estimator has received only limited attention. That omission is partially rectified here for cases of relatively small numbers of tables and moderate to large within-table sample sizes. The conditional maximum likelihood estimator is found to be superior to the unconditional maximum likelihood estimator, and equal or superior to the Mantel-Haenszel estimator in both bias and precision.     

The relative efficiency of penetrance estimators for sib pairs

Here we present analytical studies to evaluate the relative efficiency of commonly used penetrance estimators using linkage designs. We investigated three different methods of estimating penetrance using sib pairs: Maximum likehood estimation (MLE) with trait information alone, MLE with both trait and marker information and the MOD score approach. Modeling sib pairs with unknown phase, we evaluated the asymptotic relative efficiency between estimators under either random sampling or single ascertainment for an autosomal dominant or recessive disease. We then provide plots of the asymptotic relative efficiency, enabling researchers to easily determine regions where the MOD score or segregation alone performs with comparable efficiency relative to joint segregation and linkage.     

Penalized likelihood phylogenetic inference: bridging the parsimony-likelihood gap

The increasing diversity and heterogeneity of molecular data for phylogeny estimation has led to development of complex models and model-based estimators. Here, we propose a penalized likelihood (PL) framework in which the levels of complexity in the underlying model can be smoothly controlled. We demonstrate the PL framework for a four-taxon tree case and investigate its properties. The PL framework yields an estimator in which the majority of currently employed estimators such as the maximum-parsimony estimator, homogeneous likelihood estimator, gamma mixture likelihood estimator, etc., become special cases of a single family of PL estimators. Furthermore, using the appropriate penalty function, the complexity of the underlying models can be partitioned into separately controlled classes allowing flexible control of model complexity.     

Interval Estimation of Simple Difference in Dichotomous Data with Repeated Measurements

When comparing two treatments, we often use the simple difference between the probabilities of response to measure the efficacy of one treatment over the other. When the measurement of outcome is unreliable or the cost of obtaining additional subjects is high relative to that of additional measurements from the obtained subjects, we may often consider taking more than one measurement per subject to increase the precision of an interval estimator. This paper focuses discussion on interval estimation of simple difference when we take repeated measurements per subject. This paper develops four asymptotic interval estimators of simple difference for any finite number of measurements per subject. This paper further applies Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the finite‐sample performance of these estimators in a variety of situations. Finally, this paper includes a discussion on sample size determination on the basis of both the average length and the probability of controlling the length of the resulting interval estimate proposed elsewhere.     

Asymptotically robust variance estimation for person‐time incidence rates

Person‐time incidence rates are frequently used in medical research. However, standard estimation theory for this measure of event occurrence is based on the assumption of independent and identically distributed (iid) exponential event times, which implies that the hazard function remains constant over time. Under this assumption and assuming independent censoring, observed person‐time incidence rate is the maximum‐likelihood estimator of the constant hazard, and asymptotic variance of the log rate can be estimated consistently by the inverse of the number of events. However, in many practical applications, the assumption of constant hazard is not very plausible. In the present paper, an average rate parameter is defined as the ratio of expected event count to the expected total time at risk. This rate parameter is equal to the hazard function under constant hazard. For inference about the average rate parameter, an asymptotically robust variance estimator of the log rate is proposed. Given some very general conditions, the robust variance estimator is consistent under arbitrary iid event times, and is also consistent or asymptotically conservative when event times are independent but nonidentically distributed. In contrast, the standard maximum‐likelihood estimator may become anticonservative under nonconstant hazard, producing confidence intervals with less‐than‐nominal asymptotic coverage. These results are derived analytically and illustrated with simulations. The two estimators are also compared in five datasets from oncology studies.     

Five interval estimators for proportion ratio under a stratified randomized clinical trial with noncompliance

It is not uncommon that we may encounter a randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which there are confounders which are needed to control and patients who do not comply with their assigned treatments. In this paper, we concentrate our attention on interval estimation of the proportion ratio (PR) of probabilities of response between two treatments in a stratified noncompliance RCT. We have developed and considered five asymptotic interval estimators for the PR, including the interval estimator using the weighted-least squares (WLS) estimator, the interval estimator using the Mantel-Haenszel type of weight, the interval estimator derived from Fieller's Theorem with the corresponding WLS optimal weight, the interval estimator derived from Fieller's Theorem with the randomization-based optimal weight, and the interval estimator based on a stratified two-sample proportion test with the optimal weight suggested elsewhere. To evaluate and compare the finite sample performance of these estimators, we apply Monte Carlo simulation to calculate the coverage probability and average length in a variety of situations. We discuss the limitation and usefulness for each of these interval estimators, as well as include a general guideline about which estimators may be used for given various situations.     

Nonparametric and semiparametric estimation with sequentially truncated survival data

In observational cohort studies with complex sampling schemes, truncation arises when the time to event of interest is observed only when it falls below or exceeds another random time, that is, the truncation time. In more complex settings, observation may require a particular ordering of event times; we refer to this as sequential truncation. Estimators of the event time distribution have been developed for simple left-truncated or right-truncated data. However, these estimators may be inconsistent under sequential truncation. We propose nonparametric and semiparametric maximum likelihood estimators for the distribution of the event time of interest in the presence of sequential truncation, under two truncation models. We show the equivalence of an inverse probability weighted estimator and a product limit estimator under one of these models. We study the large sample properties of the proposed estimators and derive their asymptotic variance estimators. We evaluate the proposed methods through simulation studies and apply the methods to an Alzheimer's disease study. We have developed an R package, seqTrun , for implementation of our method.     

Homogeneity score test for the intraclass version of the kappa statistics and sample-size determination in multiple or stratified studies

When the intraclass correlation coefficient or the equivalent version of the kappa agreement coefficient have been estimated from several independent studies or from a stratified study, we have the problem of comparing the kappa statistics and combining the information regarding the kappa statistics in a common kappa when the assumption of homogeneity of kappa coefficients holds. In this article, using the likelihood score theory extended to nuisance parameters (Tarone, 1988, Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 17(5), 1549-1556) we present an efficient homogeneity test for comparing several independent kappa statistics and, also, give a modified homogeneity score method using a noniterative and consistent estimator as an alternative. We provide the sample size using the modified homogeneity score method and compare it with that using the goodness-of-fit method (GOF) (Donner, Eliasziw, and Klar, 1996, Biometrics 52, 176-183). A simulation study for small and moderate sample sizes showed that the actual level of the homogeneity score test using the maximum likelihood estimators (MLEs) of parameters is satisfactorily close to the nominal and it is smaller than those of the modified homogeneity score and the goodness-of-fit tests. We investigated statistical properties of several noniterative estimators of a common kappa. The estimator (Donner et al., 1996) is essentially efficient and can be used as an alternative to the iterative MLE. An efficient interval estimation of a common kappa using the likelihood score method is presented.     

On the potential for illogic with logically defined outcomes

Logically defined outcomes are commonly used in medical diagnoses and epidemiological research. When missing values in the original outcomes exist, the method of handling the missingness can have unintended consequences, even if the original outcomes are missing completely at random. In this note, we consider 2 binary original outcomes, which are missing completely at random. For estimating the prevalence of a logically defined "or" outcome, we discuss the properties of 4 estimators: the complete-case estimator, the available-case estimator, the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), and a moment-based estimator. With the exception of the available-case case estimator, all the estimators are consistent. The MLE exhibits superior performance and should be generally adopted.